Technical aspects of botulinum toxin type A injection in the bladder to treat urinary incontinence: reviewing the procedure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Standardise the injection technique with botulinum toxin type A (BoNT A) in the bladder of patients with overactive bladder (OAB) [idiopathic overactive bladder (iOAB) or neurogenic overactive bladder (nOAB) with urinary incontinence], using a literature review and a survey of an International expert panel. METHODS: PubMed literature searches of BoNT A in adults with iOAB/nOAB together with a survey of 13 experts from 10 countries. RESULTS: Data from 21 articles and completed questionnaires were collated. The procedure can be carried out in an out-/inpatient setting. Dose used in clinical studies vs. clinical practice was 300 and 200 U for nOAB and 200 and 100 U for iOAB. Recent studies have also demonstrated that there are no clinically relevant benefits between 100 and 150 U in iOAB or between 300 and 200 U in nOAB, though adverse effects are increased with higher doses. Usually, 30 sites for nOAB (range: 6.7-10 U/ml) and 20-30 sites for iOAB (range: 5-10 U/ml) are injected in clinical studies vs. 20-30 sites of 1 ml/injection for 200 U in nOAB and 10-20 sites of 0.5-1 ml/injection for 100 U in iOAB in clinical practice. BoNT A is usually injected directly into the detrusor, sparing the trigone. Flexible or rigid cystoscopes are used. The needle should be typically 22-27 gauge and 4 mm in length and should have a stopper to avoid any leakage or perforation of the bladder wall while ensuring a targeted injection. CONCLUSION: Based on the literature and survey analysis, recommendations are proposed for the standardisation of the injection procedure.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".